Victory! 6th Circuit Judge Upholds Ban on Dangerous Child ‘Gender’ Medicine
The decision finally acknowledged what feminists have been saying for years: “Transgender” identification is neither an immutable status nor an oppressed class
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided last week to uphold two similar laws in Kentucky and Tennessee that ban giving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and genital surgery to minors for the purpose of “gender affirmation.” In a major win for women and girls, the judge scolded the ACLU, Lambda Legal, the Department of Justice, and the multiple “large law firms” who joined them for attempting to paint trans-identified people as a politically powerless group and protected class:
“The President of the United States and the Department of Justice support the plaintiffs. A national anti-discrimination law, Title VII, protects transgender individuals in the employment setting. Fourteen States have passed laws specifically allowing some of the treatments sought here. Twenty States have joined an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs. The major medical organizations support the plaintiffs. And the only large law firms to make an appearance in the case all entered the controversy in support of the plaintiffs. These are not the hallmarks of a skewed or unfair political process” (pg. 34)
The court ruled that the U.S Constitution does not grant trans-identified people a due process right to experimental drugs or any special rights under the Equal Protection Clause simply because of how they identify.
Case Background
The decision combined two similar cases: L. W., et al. v. Skrmetti, et al. (in Tennessee) Jane Doe 1, et al. v. Thornbury, et al. (in Kentucky). In March of 2023, both states passed laws to protect children from dangerous and irreversible medical interventions related to a child’s false belief that they are the opposite sex.
The laws prevent medical providers from:
Prescribing off-label puberty blockers to prevent the healthy onset of puberty in minors
Using of cross-sex hormones in minors to mimic the opposite sex
Conducting surgery on a minor’s sexual organs to appear more like the opposite sex
The laws are enforced by directing state regulatory authorities to impose “professional discipline,” creating a private cause of action that allows minor victims of gender medicine or their parents to sue, and extends the statute of limitations.
The laws were challenged by trans activists and, in June, the District Court granted preliminary injunctions preventing the laws in both states from going into effect. This week’s decision in the Court of Appeals overturns those injunctions and puts the laws into full effect.
“It is one thing for the State to impose a procedure on someone; it is quite another to deem it unsafe and prohibit it”
The court delivered a blow to gender extremists who claim that these procedures are safe and settled science, stating:
“It was concerned that the long-term harms of these treatments, some potentially irreversible, remain unknown and outweigh any near-term benefits because the treatments are ‘experimental in nature and not supported by high-quality, long-term medical studies’” (pg. 7).
As WoLF recently outlined in our submission to the FDA on the issue of puberty blockers, these harmful medical practices have increasingly targeted girls — especially same-sex attracted or autistic girls.
The court acknowledged that many of the same countries who initially pushed to normalize these treatments are now realizing the terrible mistake they’ve made, reversing course only after years of damage was done:
“It is difficult, at any rate, to maintain that these treatments have a meaningful pedigree. It has been about a decade since the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the key medical organization relied upon by the plaintiffs, first said that hormone treatments could be used by all adolescents, no matter how young. And some of the same European countries that pioneered these treatments now express caution about them and have pulled back on their use. How in this setting can one maintain that long-term studies support their use—and that the Constitution requires it?” (pg. 19)
In a medical landscape where many professionals have been repeatedly informed by their professional associations, mentors, and colleagues that “gender affirming” treatments are the only appropriate responses for minors who might be gender dysphoric or identify as transgender — this recognition of the medical debate that remains largely unsettled is extremely impactful.
Unlike biological sex, transgender is not an “immutable group”
While the transgender movement has latched onto women’s rights and attempted to systematically chisel away at the protections that enable modern life for women, last week’s decision rejected this ideological encroachment.
“Recognizing and respecting biological sex differences does not amount to stereotyping—unless Justice Ginsburg’s observation in United States v. Virginia that biological differences between men and women “are enduring” amounts to stereotyping.” (pg. 32)
The court smacked down arguments that these laws discriminated on the basis of sex, and made it clear that transgender identification was not a protected class for this purpose. Although the 2020 Bostock decision granted Title VII employment protection to people based on “transgender status,” the 6th Circuit correctly restrained from extending that narrow-scope decision to the U.S. Constitution.
The decision stated, “One simply cannot define, or create, a protected class solely by the nature of a denied medical benefit: in this instance childhood treatment for gender dysphoria” and “a concern about potentially irreversible medical procedures for a child is not a form of stereotyping.”
The court also argued that transgender status is not immutable, citing the stories of detransitioners.
Groundbreaking Ruling Changes the Legal Landscape: What’s Next?
The 6th Circuit’s decision means that any similar bills in Michigan and Ohio would likely also be upheld. However, the impact of this decision could be felt throughout the country. Other U.S. Circuit courts, like the 8th Circuit, have ruled the opposite — upholding injunctions against similar laws. The decision by the 6th Circuit in these cases creates a conflict between the country’s Circuit Courts — opening up the opportunity for the Supreme Court to weigh in.
Take Action! Tell the FDA to Address the Off-Label Use of Puberty Blockers in Children!
A new petition by a coalition of physicians and organizations is calling on the FDA to take action in response to the growing and dangerous trend of the off-label use of puberty blockers in children to treat “gender dysphoria.” The public is able to submit comments in support of this petition.
Join WoLF in supporting this petition demanding the FDA take action to protect children!
